Equality Training – Ethics or Prejudice?

Richard Wiseman posts a quiz on his blog. This type of quiz is used a lot in equality training to expose people’s prejudices. Often they try to get people to support saving a woman and child over a gay man or old man, or they try to get people to choose saving a surgeon over a disabled person or politician, or similar types of discrimination. Richard Wiseman’s was:

Time for a poll.  The sinking of the Costa Concordia has made me wonder whether the old adage of ‘women and children first’ still applies.  So, if you are a guy, imagine that you were on the ship.  It is sinking and there are a limited number of lifeboats.  You are not with your partner or children.  Would you follow the ‘women and children first’ rule?  Be honest – it is all anonymous!  Vote now….

My answer is simple: save myself and the child

It would be against my ‘religion’ to put the woman and child before myself, which is based on a personal interpretation of the Abrahamic texts. I answered both questions by the way. Whilst my sex is man, my gender is 19% female and 81% male so I had a right to answer the one relating to females. So I voted that most men would put women and children they have no relationship with before themselves. But then most of these men are probably walkovers who are pathetic excuses for human beings.

Survival of the fittest – If there were only two spaces on the boat, I’d take the kid and let the woman drown. Neither she, nor any other person is more important than me – they are certainly not above God!

4 thoughts on “Equality Training – Ethics or Prejudice?”

  1. I believe that I am close to God as he created me, specifically me, in his own image. As I am white then it follows that God is white and therefore I believe that black and asian people are further away from the godliness than white people. I therefore feel that to ask me, require me or otherwise place me in the company of non-white people is an offence to God and discrimination against my religious belief. I therefore call for immediate repatriation of non-whites, based solely on colour, to their homeland and to require, forcibly if necessary, them to cease practising Christianity.
    I am also a rabid homophobic. If you are a “poof”, “queer” ” bum burglar” or otherwise “homosexuelle”, then death is the only biblical fate. By burning.

    Of course I do not believe this, but I have at least a healthy sense of irony and humour which allows these views to be comedic. You don’t have that luxury. Yet my argument above is perfect logic, but it is fallacious. It is based on a belief, and a belief alone, however strange or erroneous that belief is. To conclude that you would save yourself before anyone else based on this logic, making life and death real world decisions is perverse. I conclude the same as you, but my conclusion is based simply on the fact that my life is more important to me than anyone else’s.

    I started posting on this blog in the belief that it was a comedic blog of Jonathan Bishop, a character who court controversy to provoke trolling in order to study it. You can imagine my disappointment when I came across a video of you lecturing and realised that there is no character (take from that what you will). You believe these things.

    One last problem for you. Queen dies tomorrow (that’ll get MI5 computers buzzing). Charles takes the throne. As he does he declares that he is actually Christ on earth come again. Do you believe him? I suggest not. Why, because there is a pretty organised view of what god is and a certain amount of faith placed in the Church to somehow understand these matters. Now teleport back 3000 years to a time of complete naivety. Average man not even able to use a wheel let alone consider the thorny problem of the human condition and its relationship to infinite nothingness. No-one knows where we come from or where we go, thousands of different ideas, most centring around the stars and assuming that one one dies they become one or some other belief. Now, Mr King takes the throne, and you are his obedient servant. He is imbued with divine grace from the creator of everything and so you believe everything he says. He is always right, there is no concept of a king ever being wrong He tells you that he is God on earth. Do you believe him?

    Ever question whether Solomon was just some self-serving chap who saw a way to manipulate his position? Isn’t that more likely in your conception of the world today (you would admit that Charles would be unlikely to be almost God on earth, but there is no reason why not)? If this is the case, aren’t you then left looking a bit of a mug?

    1. I think “beleive” is a strong word. If you were to think of my belief-system as series of parallel dimensions, then you might, like colleagues do, see my attitude to life as being “wicked”.

      If you are as educated as me, then you’ll know the only way to avoid depression is to be philosophical and idealistic.

      By studying the advanced levels of philosophy I have then being a post-modernist is the only option. To make one’s own meta-arrange using the principles of philosophy and law.

      So there area these strands of belief I have:
      1. What I think the law says, what I would like it to say, and what it could be construed to say.
      2. What the Bible/Quran say, how this can support my way of life, and it what ways could it be construed beyond what it was originally intended
      3. What a science publication says, whether I agree with it in-line with my own premises as a Scientist, how it could be used to enhance my theories and other knowledge, even without this premise.

      There are things I interpret the Bible (1st, 2nd testaments) says, and things I belief the Quran (the 3rd testament) say. Equally there are things I think the Origin of Species to say, and things Einstein has said. I call the Three Testaments and the original seminal works of Darwin, Hawking, Newton, Einstein, Gallalio, etc, the Holy Scriptures. And they are equal to one another in my religion. There are many things in all of them that are true and many which are not – God knows which are and which aren’t.

      Many people joined made up religions to make use of these religious texts to support their worldview. Some use it to justify homophobia, some use it to justify having a baptism, others a dedication, and I as a confirmed Anglican have nieces and nephews whom I have taken that role for.

      So I see nothing wrong with using the things the Bible or other Holy Scriptures say which I agree with which can have a positive aspect on the way I live and make choices about myself, and to justify decisions through the resultant Theocracy in order to justify my actions.

      Many from a Humanist Background seek to support thing you advocate. But from my point of view, by making use of my made up religion to protect my way of life, should no be used any differently to others doing things for their congregation.

      If you were to look at the government definition of belief

      Religion has the meaning usually given to it but belief includes religious and philosophical beliefs including lack of belief (e.g. Atheism). Generally, a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live for it to be included in the definition.

      So in essence, I will relate the aspects of the Bible I like to support my daily activities and justify the lifestyle I want.

      This included diets – like eating soup on a lunch time because the bible says eating vegetables and water increases learning ability.

      So my choice is use the equality apparatus relating to protected characteristics to support what will best increase your opportunities in life.

      So in other words, if others are going to live by a made up religion that has little of scientific merit, then why can’t I live by my own?

      I think that Giboff should ask whether it unethical to use instruments in the Equality Act 200 to protect who you are as a person, who have certain things about you that you want to preserve?

      I would say people are always trying to change me, and criticise me for who I am.

      So in using my Solomonism to justify my approach to life is something others with legal mind might have though to do!

  2. In order to better understand you, perhaps you could post for your readers answers to the following questions:

    i) How do you define a religion as opposed a belief system?
    ii) Is every decision discriminatory against someone, or potentially discriminatory?
    iii) In order to make an alleged non-discriminatory decision discriminatory, what must the discriminated party prove?
    iv) Do you live with your parents?
    v) Are they religious, or do they believe that you are akin to King Soloman?
    vi) Are your siblings part of your church?
    vii) Have you ever had sex with man or beast – I believe this is fundamental to understanding the emotional needs of others?
    viii) Have the people of Treforest seen your views on abortion?
    ix) Where do you drink? I drink in the Bush in Llantwit Fardre, surprised not to have heard of you before recently, I know most local polymaths, i’m one myself, the only one I thought, I have a club, its just me at the moment, you are welcome to join, fee of 50p, you get a badge.
    x) Any chance of showing us the equation for gender calculations, I think i’m 50/50, but would like to see (I like Elton John)
    xi) Explain your conception of God, what are his boundaries, and then explain how Solomon could have been anything close to this conception

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *